Talk:Air India Flight 182/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Bias

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The section on the 'Government of India' theory seems to be self-promotion. I have no issue with it being included, and I suppose there could be some need to state the credentials of journalists who have proposed a conspiracy theory that is outside of the mainstream, but do we need to know that Mr. McAndrew is originally from Niagara Falls? If no one objects, I think it ought to be cleaned up a bit. -ALC

March 18th Added more information on what was known before and after the bombing. Changed "bomb brothers" to something a little more descriptive. Changed the beginning to get to the point and removed some repeated information throughout.

This page says "The bomb caused a rapid decompression, followed by a rapid decompression". Could someone who knows about planes please fix this?

1. I know about planes. 2. Its a typo, not an "error of knowledge". I meant to say that na inflight breakup came after the decompression. WhisperToMe 21:25, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm having trouble making sense of this article. Mr. Singh wanted his suitcase put on an entirely different flight than the one he was on? The article says he only had one suitcase, which exploded when the baggage handlers were transferring it to Flight 301, then the article says that Flight 182 disappeared with "a cackling sound" (was a terrorist laughing over the radio?) and then the article says that the suitcase "wound up on" Flight 182... the chronology of the article is confusing. And it says the attack was "led by Sikh nationalists" - how was this known? Did they claim responsibility, and how was it proven? And some victims really survived a fall of 31,000 feet?! It would really help if the article were clarified. Brian Kendig 16:42, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

1. The cackling sound was the explosion, of course. 2. Mr. Singh never came on any flight, and neither did L. Singh. Two different people had two different suitcases. 3. I got the "survived the fall" thing from the CBC special report. 4. The CBC report includes information on how the Canadian government bungled the case and the pruported motives of the men accused of the bombing.

WhisperToMe 07:11, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It does no good to tell me all that HERE! Please clarify the article! (By 'cackling sound' you probably meant 'crackling sound,' right?) - Brian Kendig 12:09, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In many cases, it does all the good telling you here; you didn't read carefully enough in some of the cases (esp. in the Mr. Singh case - You misread "Mr. Singh" and "L. Singh" as being one person) - Also, some of the issues were resolved before I replied but after you voiced your complaint. WhisperToMe 19:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Changed "the trial was marred by pre-trial motions ..." to "the trial was delayed by pre-trial motions." Providing due process is not a bad thing. --LeeHunter 13:41, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why is there no reference to the book Soft Target detailing an investigation into the background to this event? The findings in Soft Target were (paraphrasing) that the Hindustan Government had some involvement in what happened, in an attempt to slander Sikhs in Canada.

Looks like investigation is open again [1]

Alternate theories

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Vancouver papers report that the alternate theories that it was a conspiracy by the Indian government were not considered credible by the public or were discounted at trial. That sounds like reasonable language to use in this article regarding the alternate theories. Canuckle 04:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Some new content was added about Parmar's alleged confession in 1992. I asked on the Reliable Sources guideline page whether the source was reliable and received the following feedback so I'll copy the Tehelka-sourced content here for discussion and better sourcing:

Tehelka on terrorism

Tehelka, an investigative paper in India, has been cited as the source for claims that a suspected terrorist identified the Indian gov't and not Sikh separatists as being behind the worst act of aviation terrrorism prior to 9-11. See new content added to Air India Flight 182 and Talwinder Singh Parmar. Does anyone have perspective on whether it is a reliable source? The theory had in the past been discredited, but if reliable sources are examining it, I guess we have to cover it. Canuckle 00:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say hold off on it until other sources are reporting their own findings (as opposed to reporting what Tehelka found). WP:RS says "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" and I would say that this would need more verification. Corpx 01:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is something covered and discredited in multiple reliable sources, the best route for inclusion would be to mention the paper said X, but that this theory has been generally discredited. Be sure to cite mentions of the theory being widely discredited from reliable sources. To present the theory as potentially accurate, multiple reliable sources would need to be available as mentioned by Corpx. Vassyana 01:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tehelka is a 'notable' source, but I dont think it can be called a 'reliable' source, especially in sensitive and controversial issues. Tehelka is known for sensationalism and its promoters and journalists themselves have been the subject of several legal/criminal investigations. So, anything they say has to be taken with truckloads of salt. Sarvagnya 01:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Until such time as there are no reasons to discredit a news report, there is no justification to remove it from the main entry, especially since it adds such an important aspect.

If there are contradictory reports, as user:Vassyana says, let us mention them first. But I don't see any contrary evidence being mentioned in the talk page or in the main article before it was removed.

As for Tehelka, it is a respectable and influential investigative newsmagazine in India. It came to the fore after a sting investigation of an Indian defence bribery scandal the reportage of which has stood the test of time. It is headed by Tarun Tejpal who is a noted journalist and author, and has several respected editors like Sankarshan Thakur. The paper is fiercely independent, and believes in being subscriber-funded; it carries far fewer ads than other magazines. It is a strongly liberal paper, with a leftish slant. In terms of reportage however, it is quite cautious, especially since it underwent several years of repressive legal suits after the first defence scam expose.

In addition to Tehelka's reputation, the story itself is consistent with what is known, and it reveals the "Third Man" in the story, who had remained unnamed through the trial.

I am reinstating this passage, while stating that the matter has no other corroboration and making it clear that the news item is based on this source only. If there are reports discrediting this expose per se, please reference them first. mukerjee (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Confession to Punjab Police in 1992

In July 2007, the investigative paper Tehelka reported that new evidence had been presented to the John Major commission John Major Commission of Inquiry and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) by the Punjab Human Rights Organisation (PHRO), a Chandigarh-based NGO that conducted interviews of Parmar’s associates and prepared a comprehensive report over seven years. The key part of the evidence is a confession by militant Talwinder Singh Parmar, who was widely suspected to have had a hand in the bombing. The confession was extracted by the Punjab Police on the days prior to his encounter shooting death on October 15, 1992^[1]. This evidence, in the form of audiotapes and statements, had been preserved by retired Punjab Police DSP Harmail Singh Chandi, the key official behind Parmar's arrest at Jammu in September 1992, and his subsequent interrogation between October 9 to 14.

The main revelation is that the blasts were instigated by Lakhbir Singh Brar Rode, a nephew of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, and carried out by him and Inderjit Singh Reyat, who has already been sentenced as an accessory in the crime. Parmar supplied the dynamite. The apparent confession clearly delineates the details behind the plot:

"Around May 1985, a functionary of the International Sikh Youth Federation came to me and introduced himself as Lakhbir Singh and asked me for help in conducting some violent activities to express the resentment of the Sikhs. I told him to come after a few days so that I could arrange for dynamite and battery etc. He told me that he would first like to see a trial of the blast...After about four days, Lakhbir Singh and another youth, Inderjit Singh Reyat, both came to me. We went into the jungle (of British Columbia). There we joined a dynamite stick with a battery and triggered off a blast. Lakhbir and Inderjit, even at that time, had in their minds a plan to blast an aeroplane. I was not too keen on this plan but agreed to arrange for the dynamite sticks. Inderjit wanted to use for this purpose a transistor fitted with a battery...That very day, they took dynamite sticks from me and left.

Then Lakhbir Singh, Inderjit Singh and their accomplice, Manjit Singh, made a plan to plant bombs in an Air India (AI) plane leaving from Toronto via London for Delhi and another flight that was to leave Tokyo for Bangkok. Lakhbir Singh got the seat booking done from Vancouver to Tokyo and then onwards to Bangkok, while Manjit Singh got it done from Vancouver to Toronto and then from Toronto to Delhi. Inderjit prepared the bags for the flights, which were loaded with dynamite bombs fitted with a battery and transistor. They decided that the suitcases will be booked but they themselves will not travel by the same flights although they will take the boarding passes. After preparing these bombs, the plan was ready for execution by June 21 or 22, 1985. However, the bomb to be kept in the flight from Tokyo to Delhi via Bangkok exploded at the Narita airport on the conveyor belt. The second suitcase that was loaded on the Toronto-Delhi ai flight exploded in the air." - from the confession by Talwinder Singh Parmar^[1]

After his interrogation, Parmar was shown as having been killed in an exchange of fire between police and six militants in the wee hours of 1992-10-15, near village Kang Arian in Phillar sub-division. However, the report says that actually, Parmar had been killed while in custody.

Immediately afterwards, Inspector Harmail Singh Chandi had been ordered to destroy these records, apparently because the key participant, Lakhbir Singh Rode, may have been an Indian agent. However, he had preserved these records in secret.

The tapes and statements have been handed over to the RCMP and the John C. Major Commission of Inquiry reinvestigating the Kanishka blast, as part of a comprehensive report prepared by the Punjab Human Rights Organisation (PHRO), a Chandigarh-based NGO that conducted interviews of Parmar’s associates over seven years. Tehelka reports that "the PHRO’s Principal Investigator Sarbjit Singh and lawyer Rajvinder Singh Bains flew to Canada along with Harmail in June and produced their findings before the Commission’s counsels"^[1].

Lakhbir Singh Rode, who was the head of the banned International Sikh Youth Federation, is now alleged to be living in Lahore.^[1]

The Punjab Human Rights Organisation (PHRO) has also stated that Rode was a undercover Indian Agent and that Parmar was murdered in order to protect his identity and India's role in the bombing. ^[1]

Rode is wanted by India according to the Red Corner Interpol notice, A-23/1-1997: for "MINOR OFFENCES: House breaking, theft, damage by fire.", based on investigations into another event by India's Central Bureau of Investigation.

References

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Vikram Jit Singh (issue dated 2007-08-04). "Operation Silence". Tehelka. Retrieved 2007-07-27. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Air India and Soft Target

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How can you claim a "neutral point of view" on the Air India bombing and not even mention the book Soft Target by two Canadian journalists who covered the case, Zuhair Kashmeri of the Toronto Globe and Mail and Brian McAndrew of the Toronto Star? They made a pretty conclusive case that the Indian government itself was behind the bombings. They even show a conversation with Reyat in which the Indians are trying to give him a story. Oddly, it matches very closely the one he told in court.

Soft Target, which Rep. Edolphus Towns has called "the definitive account of the Air India case," quotes a CSIS official as saying “if you really want to clear the incidents quickly, take vans to the Indian High Commission and the consulates in Toronto and Vancouver, load up everybody and take them down for questioning. We know it and they know it that they are involved.” It shows how the Indian Consul General in toronto had extensive knowledge of the case before the Canadian investigators did and before most people knew that the bombing had occurred. It shows that Babbar Khalsa was infiltrated and controlled by the Indian government. The book is filled with evidence of the Indian regime's involvement.

Furthermore, a book called "Betrayal: The Spy Canada Abandoned" by Daive Kilgour, MP, confirms India's involvement. It shows a Canadian-Polish double agent being approached by operatives of the Indian government asking him to participate in a second bombing because "the first one worked so well."

In the interests of "neutral point of view," the evidence of India's involvement in carrying out the bombing itslef ought at least to be disucssed. But there is no mention of any of it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.235.114 (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed Cleanup Tag

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Copyedited the article quite a bit and removed the May 07 cleanup tag. mukerjee (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I think the article still needs a lot of work. One area of need is to present the Canadian view on the alleged Parmar confession (the view that it's not credible and was fully investigated) so as to avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to an alternative theory. See some sources such as: [2] [3]. Canuckle 19:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the cleanup tag can be removed quite yet, just reading through briefly i can see a lot needs to be adjusted For example the order of events in some paragraphs is not quite clear, it seems to be lacking info in some areas and the grammatical tense seems slightly odd, as if it is written in present tense in some areas. It could also do with a picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.152.11 (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversy about authenticity of Soft Target (book)

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all, there has been a discusionabout the authenticity of this particular book, which claims that Indian government had penetrated the sikh millitant organisations in canada and had staged the bombings of Flight 182 to malign the pro khalistan movement. Please contribute your thoughts, ideas, comments here so as to keep the discussion unfragmented. thanks LegalEagle (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Article

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I am curious as to who died in this incident? The article doesn't say. Was it mostly Indians? Canadians? If Canadians, how many of them were of Indian descent? And how many of Sikh descent? I mean, the article talks about the extent to which the Canadian public considers it a "Canadian tragedy", and I can't really come to any conclusion without knowing who was on the plane. Who was on the plane??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.139.97 (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, all of the so called Canadians were actually ethnic Indians. So I would not consider this as a Canadian tragedy, just because they Indians and it did not happen over the Canadian skies.

Norum (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

December 07 I agree that we should add something into the first paragraph about Sikh separatism. However in the past this article was the target of an edit war where anything negative of Sikh separatism was deleted. I've put back in the mention of Tara Singh Hayer which was deleted without any reason. I suggest that a recipient of the Order of British Columbia who was murdered while under RCMP protection for giving an affidavit regarding this case definitely warrants inclusion in this page. I suspect his removal was done by those upset about a negative portrayal of Sikhs. If this is not the case than let's have a discussion here on the talk page. Anyway disagree?

All this article and the likely cause of the bombing is incredibly easy to miss. There should be something about sikj seperatism in the 1st paragraph. 216.165.12.71 21:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Feb 06

A previous author had added a NPOV tag but there was no previous discussion on NPOV here on the talk page.

"The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article."

So if there's something unnaceptable on this article let's bring it up and change the wording to something better, rather than just flagging a whole section without mentioning anything specific. As far as I can tell there are citations to back up any statements made in the "What the Canadian Government Knew" section.

Jan 27

The previous author had quoted the deaths of over 10,000 in the riots following Gandhi's death. I've moved the decimal place over one and included a link to the BBC article on the subject. If there is another reliable source for that figure than let's include a refrence.

In the suspects area of the page, an author had placed in another refrence to the riots following Gandhis death. However being as we have already elaborated on the situation in the Punjab previously in the article it doesn't seem to make sense to mention it yet again and more importantly seems to condone those statements he made.

Other than those two edits I've also added links to the BBC's articles on the golden temple raid and the riots.

I believe it's important that this article does not fall victim to the many other Sikh articles on Wikipedia that are flagged for clean-up and NPOV, being as how this is page is number 4 on google's results for "air india flight 182". So if anyone is making changes to the content, let's please either note exactly what the content change is in the talk page, or at the very least make some mention of it in the Edit Summary.

July 27

Yes, that looks much better. I have combined the last two paragraphs on the authors, capitalized the title of the book, italicized the publication names, corrected the spelling of the book in the external link section, and fixed some comma splices-- no doubt just the result of the removal of the plagiarised clauses. Thanks for your help. -ALC

July 25th

I agree 100% with Aconnelly, also parts of the Indian government theory were taken from http://www.formac.ca/main_book.php?tabpage=authors&id=481, the plagirized parts have been removed, and the section edited to seem less like a promotion of the book, also the link to the book's website was added to the external links section.

If anyone disagrees please state the objections here.

If not can we remove the bias?

Requested move

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Air India Flight 182 → Kanishka bombing —

The article is about the bombing of the flight on 23 June 1985 and not about the flights on the Montral-London-Delhi-Bombay route in general.
While sources on the bombing usually mention that it occurred on the Air India Flight 182, the event itself is typically referred to as Kanishka bombing AFAIK (eg: SATP, Rediff, Deccan Herald, Times of India, ...).

Abecedare (talk) 00:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the common name in CANADA is the current one, or Air India bombing, and never "Kaniska bombing". There is also the UK and Ireland to consider, since that's where it crashed. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose-- the current name fits the naming conventions at WP:AVIATION MOS: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Accidents. Furthermore, the new name is not valid as "Kaniska bombing" (used in India) is no more (if not less) WP:COMMONNAME than "Air India bombing" (used in Canada). -M.Nelson (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Since apparently the event is named differently in India, Canada, etc, what would you both think of moving the article to Air India Flight 182 bombing, so that the first sentence can include the alternate names ("Kanishka bombing", "Air India bombing", etc). At present there are over a 100 articles that link to this one through the Air India Bombing redirect, but the article lead does not even mention that name, which seems to be popular outside India. Abecedare (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If your main rationale is your first point ("Air India Flight 182" is a regularly-scheduled flight, not one single occurance) then I wouldn't disagree, but I'd want to have someone familiar with the WP:AVIATION naming conventions to confirm that this is legit. After all, I'm sure that a large number of aviation disasters were on flight numbers currently in use; this issue is likely far-reaching (and may have already been discussed). I made a note of this discussion at WP:AVIATION.
I don't oppose including "Kanishka bombing" or "Air India bombing" in the introductory sentence, even in bold. Go ahead and boldly add them as you see appropriate. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - should fit the naming convention. The key is that this was a notable flight, determined to have crashed due to sabotage. The organized way to present such occurrences (as well as other deliberate acts which cause crashes or other untoward results) is by flight number, in the case of an airline flight. Crum375 (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - naming convention is to use flight number unless an alternative is very well known (The Day the Music Died, Munich air disaster), which I'm not convinced is the case here. The redirect is fine. Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose name meets agreed convention as per mjroots. MilborneOne (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose unless the alternative is universally used in the English-speaking world. Averell (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

alternative theories

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This news section should be trimmed down to like a paragraph, it is entirely too long.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Largest mass murder in Canadian history?

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This statement should be removed without a reliable source. It happened in Ireland. Yeah, Canadians were involved, but they were involved in the September 11 bombing, too. Wouldn't that have been the largest mass murder, by this logic? In the Legacy section, a poll is mentioned in which only 48% of Canadian respondents consider this "a Canadian tragedy". That would make it a minority viewpoint. Per section 5.1 of WP:FRINGE, it should not have such an "important" position in the lead. I would remove (or move) it myself if the article wasn't browser-freezing big. Could someone else do it? Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

26 Canadians were killed in 9/11 vs. 280 here, and 48% support cannot be considered a fringe theory. I've found reliable news sources that call this the largest or worst. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with those sources, but no, that doesn't matter. They are reliable. One should be enough, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)